Mumbai MACT Dismisses BEST's ₹42,484 Claim, Cites Lack Of Proof Of NMMT Driver's Negligence

Mumbai MACT Dismisses BEST's ₹42,484 Claim, Cites Lack Of Proof Of NMMT Driver's Negligence

The Mumbai MACT dismissed BEST's claim seeking Rs 42,484 towards repair costs for a damaged bus, holding that it failed to prove the NMMT bus driver was negligent. The tribunal relied on the Traffic Accident Report, which attributed the collision to heavy traffic and found no evidence establishing rash or negligent driving.

Pranali LotlikarUpdated: Thursday, July 16, 2026, 03:37 AM IST
Mumbai MACT Dismisses BEST's ₹42,484 Claim, Cites Lack Of Proof Of NMMT Driver's Negligence
The Mumbai MACT dismissed BEST's compensation claim after finding no proof that the NMMT bus driver was negligent | AI Generated Representational Image

Mumbai, July 15, 2026: The Mumbai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has dismissed the compensation claim filed by the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) Undertaking seeking the recovery of Rs 42,484 towards repair costs for a damaged bus, holding that it failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of a Navi Mumbai Municipal Transport (NMMT) bus driver.

Tribunal Finds Lack Of Proof

The claim arose from an accident that took place on January 26, 2017, near the RBI Colony bus stop at Chembur. According to BEST, its bus was proceeding from Tardeo to Deonar Depot when an NMMT bus allegedly attempted to overtake and collided with it, causing damage.

BEST claimed that it incurred Rs 42,484.16 towards labour and material costs for repairs and sought compensation from the NMMT and its insurer, the Directorate of Insurance, Government Insurance Fund.

While the NMMT remained absent despite being served with notice, the insurer contested the claim, arguing that the BEST bus driver himself was negligent and denying liability.

During the proceedings, BEST examined its Traffic Inspector, Vikram S. Chavan, as a witness. However, the tribunal noted that he was not an eyewitness to the accident, limiting the evidentiary value of his testimony regarding how the collision occurred.

Claim Dismissed

The tribunal primarily relied on the Station Diary entry and the Traffic Accident Report (TAR), which recorded that the buses came into contact amid heavy traffic on the Sion-Trombay Road near RBI Colony. The report also stated that the accident was attributed to traffic congestion and that no further investigation had been conducted.

Also Watch:

Presiding Member K.K. Shah observed that the available material was insufficient to conclude that the accident resulted from the rash or negligent driving of the NMMT bus driver.

Since negligence is a necessary ingredient for awarding compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the tribunal held that BEST had failed to discharge its burden of proof.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/